Submit your Article

The big question after the March 15 video conference between the top leaders of eight SAARC member states is: Will Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s invoking of SAARC to address the common coronavirus threat lead to the holding of the long-postponed 19^th Summit of the regional body? Even if the deferred Islamabad summit cannot be held, does it at least signal India’s renewed interest in SAARC, a forum it has been ditching in favor of BIMSTEC in recent times?

There were multiple factors are play behind the video conference. One, India could have realized that the strategy of isolating Pakistan was not working as big powers like China, the US and Russia continue to humor the Pakistani leadership. By not talking to Islamabad, New Delhi was putting itself in a difficult spot, none more so than in Afghanistan as the Americans slowly draw down their forces there. Two, the Indian leadership surely realized that so long as there are remnants of Covid-19 in Pakistan, India could never be assured it is safe from the virus.

Three, and perhaps most important, was the domestic factor. India has in recent times been mired in a religious strife between Hindus and Muslims over a recently passed legislation that discriminates against the Muslims. This did Modi’s image some harm. By holding the video conference where he projected himself as the undisputed leader of South Asia, Modi could reassert his leadership credentials. It was perfect optics.

But what about SAARC then? According to Nishchal N. Pandey, Director of the Center for South Asian Studies in Kathmandu, the video conference has renewed hope that the stalled SAARC process would be “reinvigorated and we will soon see a SAARC Summit in Islamabad.” Not so fast, says Ashok Mehta, an old Nepal hand in India. Modi, says Mehta, now wants to firmly establish the Hindu agenda and “is in no mood to talk to Pakistan. Similarly, Pakistan is also not keen on talking to India either.”

The absence of Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan from the video conference also signaled that Islamabad is hesitant to accept India’s leadership of South Asia. Perhaps it sees no reason to do so when it has the full support of China, its all-weather friend, and continued utility for the US and Russia. SAARC can wait.  

How do you assess the role of Nepali Congress as the main opposition party?

Nepali Congress is the oldest party around. But more than that, it has contributed and sacrificed a lot to emancipate people from autocratic regimes and establish democracy. It has played a vital role in ensuring freedom of speech and expression and creating a pluralistic society. It led the democratic movement of 1950 that brought changes in the social, political and cultural spheres. Even today, Nepali people have great affection for the party.

Now we see some weaknesses in party leadership. It has failed to make some crucial decisions. If the Congress is weak now, it’s only because of the leadership, not its policy and programs, in which it is far ahead of others. Even the com­munist parties tread on its footsteps to build their rhetoric of social and political change. But having failed to act per public expectation, time has come for a revamp of party organization.

What in your view makes Sher Bahadur Deuba a weak leader?

Certainly, he has some weak­nesses. But we have to look back at the party’s recent history. Vet­eran leaders Girija Prasad Koirala, Ganesh Man Singh, and Krishna Prasad Bhattarai also had weak­nesses. Deuba is no exception. If the party operates in a democratic way and its organization is robust, the weakness of a single person doesn’t make much difference.

The new generation does not have to accept all decisions of party lead­ership. Deuba-led NC has failed to meet the expectations of both the people and the party members. Deuba has made several mistakes as the party leader. He never tried to correct those mistakes even when he got multiple chances to do so. That is why dissatisfaction has piled up against him. Deuba has pub­licly confessed to his mistakes on different occasions. But he keeps repeating them. Now he is not in a position to answer his critics. Party leaders and cadres loved him and gave him many opportunities. But he split the party. As president, he has failed to deliver.

But Deuba is still mighty power­ful in the party. Why?

The party president of Nepali Con­gress has traditionally been strong. Even if two-thirds central working committee members and district cadres stand against him, the party president will still be powerful. In the past, Krishna Prasad Bhattarai ran the party his own way. Members sat in protest against Girija Prasad Koirala in front of his residence, but he was still a powerful presi­dent. Cadres showed him black flags on several occasions. Compared to them, Deuba appears weak.

If he is weak, why has no seri­ous challenger emerged against Deuba?

Just listen to the speeches of oth­er top leaders. They talk about the past, they discuss the current sit­uation, and they criticize the gov­ernment. But they can’t come up with any plan for the future. They don’t have a vision to claim party leadership. There is no policy-re­lated discussion in the party. Even party cadres do nothing more than make rounds of top leaders’ homes hoping to bag lucrative appointments. Top leaders look at the fawning cad­res and think their public base is secure.

So isn’t there anyone to replace Deuba in the Nepali Congress?

One thing is sure: the NC cadres want to see leadership change. But change does not mean change of an individual. Changing certain leaders alone cannot bring fresh hope to the party. Similarly, change should not be based on age alone. There should be transformational changes in different areas. Even now, no member has opposed Deuba’s leadership in terms of policy and programs.

There are discussions only from the angle that if a certain person gets leadership, he can bring about dynamic changes. Till now, no one has officially announced their candidacy for party president. Instead of new faces, people expect a concrete vision for the party. Even the contenders to Deuba’s post do not have a new vision or policy to revamp the party. Cadres are looking for a new vision, not only a new face.

Why is there always a dispute over the holding of the NC General Convention?

The party’s General Conven­tion should be held within the stipulated timeframe. In the case of Nepali Congress, there is a tendency of deferring General Convention on various pretexts. The communist parties held their conventions even during the Panchayat era when they were outlawed.

But the NC did not hold a sin­gle convention at that time. Even after that, party president has always tried to avoid convention to stay in power. Such a tendency is evident in the NC sister organi­zations as well. The president wants to defer convention to strengthen his position. In case of crisis and difficult situations, the party statute allows exten­sion of the president’s term. But this liberal policy has often been misused.

What are the chances of anti-Deu­ba camps banding together to defeat him in the upcoming convention?

It would be too early to say any­thing about it. There is still a lot of time before the convention. Even the leaders loyal to Deuba may later abandon him. Considering the sen­timents of the cadres, Deuba’s aides may ask him not to run for party president again. His long-supporters may be telling him that time is not in his favor.

Who could be Deuba’s successor from his own camp?

Right now, I cannot say anything about any individual. It is also pos­sible that Deuba himself declares he would not run for presidency. The current camp may not remain intact. History shows that leaders tend to switch camps. For instance, after 1990, Deuba supported Girija Prasad Koirala for a long time. Deu­ba became home minister and ulti­mately prime minister with Koirala’s support. But Deuba later challenged Koirala for party presidency.

Should senior leaders like Deuba and Ram Chandra Poudel retire from active politics, as some have suggested, and clear the ground for new faces?

Many have suggested that they retire. I do not think that they should give up politics entirely. But it would be better if they confine themselves to the roles of party guardians. They can still have some in energizing party organizations. If they play such a role, it could bring some novelty to the party.

Is it possible that the upcoming convention will hand over lead­ership to the younger generation?

I do not think a new generation means just a new face or young age. New vision and direction are need­ed. Change only on the basis of age does not make much sense. Even Deuba’s election as party president was taken as a handover of party leadership to new generation and there was huge expectation from him. He became president suppos­edly representing the party’s young voice. Now, see, the new generation is totally disappointed by Deuba.

What explains the persistent rifts within the Nepali Congress since the 1990 political change?

Not only Nepali Congress, oth­er parties have a similar problem. Only the appearance of such rifts differs from party to party. Lack of discipline is a major weakness in the NC. 

The video conference among government and state heads of eight South Asian countries on March 15 has generated some hope about the revival of the moribund South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC). The conference was the first of its kind after an indefinite postponement of the 2016 SAARC Summit, and suggests that SAARC member countries are capable of collaborating on pressing common issues such as public health and climate change by setting aside their other differences.

The immediate response of other SAARC member states to Modi’s tweet proposing the conference signaled their eagerness to revive the regional body. In the tweet, Modi had also urged SAARC member states to chalk out a strong, common strategy to fight the novel coronavirus.

Some saw the conference as the first step towards the long-delayed 19th SAARC Summit originally scheduled to take place in Islamabad in 2016. Says Nishchal N. Pandey, Director of the Center for South Asian Studies in Kathmandu, “The video conference has renewed hope that the stalled SAARC process would be reinvigorated and we will soon see a SAARC Summit in Islamabad. It also underscores that there is no alternative to the SAARC in our region.”

Similarly, Nihar R. Nayak, Research Fellow with the Institute for Defense Studies and Analysis, a New Delhi-based think-tank, sees this as an opportunity for India, Pakistan and other member countries to revive the SAARC process. “If Pakistan cooperates, it could be an icebreaker. Otherwise, once the corona scare subsides, the tempo will die down.”

After the video conference, Pakistan also proposed to host a meeting of the health ministers of the eight SAARC countries to formulate a “coordinated response” to the health crisis. Other countries are yet to respond to the proposal.

Less than meets the eye

Since the postponement of the 2016 SAARC summit, Nepal, as the chair of the regional grouping, has been continuously urging India to agree to another summit. But India has not shown any interest, insisting that the regional environment for such a summit is ‘inappropriate’. Yet India has also expressed its readiness to sit in summit-level talks should they be held outside Pakistan—a proposal Islamabad has rejected outright.

The keenness of the Oli government in the SAARC process has been evident all along. Addressing the SAARC Standing Committee at the SAARC Secretariat in Kathmandu on 8 February 2020, Prime Minister KP Oli did not mince words. Stating that Nepal was eager to hand over SAARC chairmanship, he expressed his hope that “the SAARC member states will come up with consensus to convene the summit at an early date.” He said that as a founding member and current chair of SAARC, Nepal “strongly believes in regional cooperation to promote collective well-being of the people of South Asia.”

But there are also strong views that SAARC-level cooperation will not extend beyond the fight against the coronavirus. India, in this view, proposed the video conference as it cannot tackle the virus on its own given its porous borders with its neighbors. Moreover, Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan was notably absent from the conference, sending a junior-ranking minister to take his place. According to Ashok Mehta, a retired general of the Indian Army and an old Nepal hand, “Narendra Modi government right now wants to firmly establish the Hindu agenda inside the country and thus is in no mood to talk to Pakistan. Similarly, Pakistan is also not keen on talking to India.”

Vijay Kant Karna of the Center for Social Inclusion and Federalism in Kathmandu seconds Mehta’s views. But Karna adds that even though he sees no possibility of another SAARC summit-level meeting, the video conference does give a message that “South Asian states can collaborate on common issues like public health and climate change by developing working relations with each other.”

India’s focus on BIMSTEC

In lieu of SAARC, India has been pushing the Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-Sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation (BIMSTEC) since 2016. Accusing Pakistan of sponsoring terrorism on its soil, India has since been promoting the regional group that does not include Pakistan. At a BRICS outreach program in October 2016, India invited state and government heads from BIMSTEC, not from SAARC. Likewise, when Modi was being sworn-in as Indian prime minister for the second time in May 2019, he invited leaders from BIMSTEC countries, unlike his first swearing-in when he had invited SAARC country heads, including the prime minister of Pakistan.

As the Indian Minister for External Affairs S. Jaishankar put it earlier this year: “SAARC has certain problems and I think we all know what it is [sic]… even if you were to put the terrorism issue aside, there are connectivity and trade issues. If you look at why BIMSTEC leaders were invited for PM’s swearing-in… we see energy, mindset and possibility in BIMSTEC.”

Not only government officials, even New Delhi-based think-tanks these days promote the idea that the BIMSTEC platform is more beneficial to India than the SAARC platform.

Yet this is not the view of other South Asian countries. Bangladeshi Ambassador to Nepal Mashfee Binte Shams categorically told APEX some time ago that BIMSTEC could never replace SAARC, as the two entities had completely different purposes. “SAARC brings together the countries of the region that were closely integrated before the British came here and created artificial divisions. Before the British arrived, the region had many principalities and kingdoms but we were integrated and there was a lot of internal trade. So SAARC tries to revive that pre-British integration,” she said. That is also the view shared by other SAARC countries bar India.

But India is not convinced. This is why many reckon the video conference over the coronavirus pandemic might only have been an exercise in India’s power-projection. “As the largest country in this region, India wants to show it has the capacity to play a leading role here,” says Chandra Dev Bhatta, a Nepali political analyst who has closely followed the BJP politics in India. “The video conference was a message that during a crisis India always stands with its neighbors”.

As a precaution over coronavirus, which has already spread to over 100 countries around the world, most political parties in Nepal have suspended their large-scale gatherings. And on time; but the parties need to do more. The World Health Organization (WHO) has warned that Nepal, along with other South Asian countries, is at high risk.

The ruling Nepal Communist Party has suspended all meetings and gatherings aimed at strengthening its organizational structure. The main opposition Nepali Congress too has canceled activities in the run-up to its General Convention. Smaller parties have acted similarly. But are our political parties doing anything substantive to proactively mitigate the corona scare?

With their nation-wide bodies, they can certainly contribute. “Political parties have organizations from the center to grass-roots level,” says political analyst Bhojraj Pokharel. “They have the biggest and widest networks of all entities in the country. So they can definitely help raise awareness about the virus.”

Political cadres can also reach far-flung areas with low presence of traditional or social media and discuss precautionary measures with the people.

Two months after the COVID-19 outbreak in next-door China and after the spotting of the first and only coronavirus case in Nepal thus far, our parties are yet to carry out any substantive awareness drive. (Of course, they claim otherwise.) Instead, major parties—ruling NCP and opposition NC—seem busy in internal power plays. In the parliament, lawmakers have raised questions about government preparations in tackling a possible outbreak. The parliament is also discussing a motion related to the coronavirus. Moreover, the political parties have posted some preventive measures against coronavirus in their social media. But there is as yet no public engagement.

“Political parties should constantly talk about safety measures with the people. But the top-down hierarchical nature of our parties hinders with this kind of public activism,” says Devraj Dahal, another political analyst.

“At the same time, there should be coordination among government agencies and ministries. For instance, the Ministry of Home Affairs is now issuing statements on coronavirus, which is not the right approach,” Dahal adds.

Political leaders and cadres can take to the streets, they can talk to the people, and they can give out the right information, which is not happening at the moment. A crisis can in fact be an opportunity for political parties to show their presence.

But it seems even people are unaware of the role of political parties during a crisis. They believe handling a crisis is solely the government’s duty. But it is worth asking: If parties can mobilize thousands of cadres during election campaigns, why can’t they do so to raise awareness against a potentially deadly disease?

Representatives of political parties reject the allegation that they have done nothing substantive on coronavirus. “We have already instructed party rank and file to launch door-to-door campaign to inform people about preventive measures,” says Nepali Congress Spokesperson Bishwa Prakash Sharma. He claims Congress was the first party in Nepal to prepare a coronavirus video and disseminate it over social media. Besides, Congress youth wing Nepal Tarun Dal is monitoring the market to check the artificial shortage of daily commodities.

Similarly, ruling NCP leaders say they have already issued a circular to their sister organizations and grassroots level cadres to help raise awareness. Party General Secretary Bishnu Poudel says they have instructed their cadres to go to every household with preventive measures against coronavirus. “They have been instructed to work in coordination with people’s representatives, civil society leaders and local media,” Poudel claims.

The Sajha Party has launched its own ‘Sajha Namaste Campaign’ urging people not to shake hands and to do a ‘Namaste’ instead. “We have prepared a video on corona incorporating the views of health experts and we are disseminating it through social media,” says the party’s Prakash Chandra Pariyar. Besides such messages on social media, the party, however, is yet to instruct its members to undertake a door-to-door campaign. But Pariyar claims Sajha fully understands the priority right now is “to inform people about preventive measures”.

Even though these parties claim to have deployed their cadres as well as their sister and youth wings against the virus, their workers are seldom seen in the field knocking on people’s doors.

If they are willing, the political parties can help in other ways as well. First, party cadres can identify any weakness on part of the government agencies and put pressure on them to correct them immediately. “Then, in case of an outbreak, they can coordinate with concerned agencies to provide medical care to the people,” according to Pokharel, the political analyst.

“Best of all would be for all the political parties to join hands to tackle the common challenge,” Pokharel says. Instead, in Nepal, the tendency is to go it alone to prove your loyalty to the people—even (or especially) in times of crisis.

Bamdev Gautam is an ambitious leader long known for his shoot-from-the-hip nature. Arguably, in the 56 years he has been in active politics, Gautam has experienced more upheavals than any of his other ex-CPN-UML contemporaries.

Gautam always finds a way to be at the center of national politics. This time, he is in the headlines for his naked display of ambition to become the prime minister via the route of the National Assembly, the federal upper house. Earlier, the 76-year-old leader had been chosen as the head of the ruling Nepal Communist Party’s powerful organization department by the party’s central committee. The same meeting had elevated him to the post of the party vice-chairman.
But then Gautam is someone who lost the most recent parliamentary elections, which otherwise saw a near complete communist sweep. So what is the secret to his continued power despite the election loss?

“He is a good organizer and someone who has been continuously working for his party for nearly six decades,” says Hari Roka, a political analyst who has in the past worked with Gautam. Roka reckons Gautam did a sterling job as the head of the former CPN-UML’s organization department, and as such he has now been given the responsibility of leading the NCP’s organization department as well. “In the capacity of UML organization department head, Gautam was able to leave a good imprint on the party rank and file,” Roka adds. This legacy is now reflected in his clout in the 441-member NCP central committee.

According to Roka, Gautam is also someone capable of taking big risks at decisive moments.Gautam’s ambitions were whetted when he got to lead the UML organization department 22 years ago. Back then, he had initiated a signature campaign to dislodge party general secretary Madhav Kumar Nepal. After he failed to do so and thereby to grab the leadership, he split the party, forming his breakaway CPN-ML. His newfangled party failed to win a single seat in the 1999 parliamentary elections, and he again merged with the UML. Yet the split had somewhat dented his reputation as he had come to be seen as a cunning backstabber.

Accustomed to power Says NCP leader Tanka Karki, who has also closely worked with the septuagenarian leader, “Gautam has continuously occupied powerful positions since 1990. In a feudal society, a leader who remains in power for so long invariably develops unique strengths.” Gautam joined the communist party in 1964 as full-time party cadre, and was first elected in the House of Representatives in 1991.

In 1997, he became home minister for the first time, a post he held thrice, in addition to becoming deputy prime minister three times as well. The Home is a powerful ministry and Gautam steadily increased his hold on the bureaucracy from there. In 2009, the UML Butwal general convention elected Gautam party vice-chair and that portfolio helped him cement his hold on the party as well. Besides, as a head of the party’s Peasant’s Federation, Gautam cultivated a good network of cadres across the country.

After the NCP’s formation in May 2018, party co-chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal has been lending a strong support to Gautam. Their relations go back a long way. During the Maoist insurgency, Gautam was in constant touch with the top Maoist brass and was of the view— against the prevailing wisdom at the time—that the Maoist party should be accommodated into the political mainstream. It was Gautam who along with leader Yubaraj Gyawali reached Rolpa to forge a six-point agreement aimed at the mainstreaming of the Maoists. (This agreement was the precursor to the later 12-point agreement between the Seven Party Alliance and the Maoists.)
He also played a vital role in the formation of the left alliance in 2017 and in the unification of CPN-UML and CPN (Maoist Center). Gautam in fact had been advocating for such unity since the 2006 political changes.Of late party co-chair Dahal has been publicly saying that Gautam’s time to be prime minister may have finally arrived.Gautam time?

The party secretariat’s decision to pick Gautam as a member of the National Assembly was opposed from in and outside the parliament. More than that, a proposal was floated to amend the constitution to pave the way for a National Assembly member to become prime minister. After widespread criticism, this plan was dropped—at least for the time being.

As constitutional lawyer Bipin Adhikari put it to APEX last week: “I do not think the House of Representatives would agree to tie up its hands and legs by allowing the National Assembly to pick a prime minister. The people who are pushing the amendment have not thought this through.”

Yet this is not the first time a politician defeated in national elections has tried to get to power through the backdoor—and succeeded. After his defeat in the first Constituent Assembly election in 2008, UML general secretary Madhav Kumar Nepal was nonetheless handpicked as an MP and eventually got to become prime minister in 2009. Similarly, spokesperson of Nepal Communist Party Narayan Kaji Shrestha, who lost in 2017 from Gorkha, is now a nominated National Assembly member.
On Gautam, the common feeling, even within the NCP rank and file, is that once you lose a parliamentary election, you should have to wait for five years to be eligible for re-election. As constitutional lawyer Adhikari hinted, nor will it be easy for Gautam to get the two-thirds majority needed to amend the constitution in his favor.
Adds NCP’s Karki: “It is not about Gautam. It is a violation of the public mandate to appoint leaders who lost popular elections to the National Assembly, much less clear their path to the country’s top executive post.”

But why have top NCP leaders been seemingly so willing to address his demands? As Gautam is considered an expert manipulator of internal party politics, each of Oli, Nepal and Dahal, the leaders of three NCP factions, wants Gautam’s support to consolidate their power. Gautam’s contemporary UML colleagues like Oli, Nepal, and Jhala Nath Khanal have all gotten the top executive post in the country. Gautam, the oldest of the quartet, perhaps feels time is not on his hands .

The main opposition party is con­vening its General Convention, its top decision-making body, in the first week of February 2021. Incum­bent party President Sher Bahadur Deuba, 73, is looking to hang on, even after the party under him got a drubbing in the 2017 elections. Oth­er party leaders wanted him to take responsibility and resign; Deuba asked why only he had to pay.

Deuba could face a tough chal­lenge from Dr Shekhar Koirala who has been widely canvassing the country trying to drum up support for his candidacy for the president. He believes he is the right scion of the Koirala family and that Dr Sha­shank Koirala, the other Koirala can­didate for presidency, should make way for him. But Shashank, whose legacy as late BP’s son is unmatched and who got the popular vote during the last general convention en route to his election as general secretary, is in no mood to concede. Sujata Koirala, the daughter of late Girija Prasad, could also throw her hat in the ring at the last minute.

Ram Chandra Poudel, 75, who feels other senior leaders have long cheated him of party presidency, and even prime minister’s chair, thinks his time has finally come. Prakash Man Singh, another senior leader from the Poudel camp, also wants to fight for presidency. But if Poudel enters the ring, Singh is like­ly to settle for vice-president again.

The common feeling is that the Nepali Congress will struggle to be a competitive force again so long as the old bunch of leaders don’t retire and hand over leadership to younger Turks like Gagan Thapa, 43, and Bishwa Prakash Sharma, 49. Yet these leaders are likely to settle for general secretary, the second most powerful executive post, this time around. From the Deuba camp, spokesperson Bishwa Prakash Shar­ma is likely to fight for general sec­retary. Shekhar Koirala is trying to woo Gagan Thapa into his camp as a general secretary candidate.

There seems to be a clear choice for other camps fighting Deuba. Either they choose a common can­didate against the four-time prime minister, or Deuba wins again. “If there are multiple candidates, Deu­ba is sure to win again,” says senior NC leader Hom Nath Dahal, who has closely worked with Deuba in the past. No offense. But a Deuba win is not what most folks in or outside the party are looking forward to.

Nepali Congress bigwigs jostle for a supremacy after general convention dates out 

With the announcement of its General Convention date, the race for the posts of party president and general secre­tary, the two top executive posts in the Nepali Congress, is heating up.After a long tussle among rival fac­tions over convention procedures, the grand old party has decided to hold it in the first week of February 2021. Rival factions have intensified preparations to garner convention representatives.

The party has also unveiled the itinerary for its local and provincial conventions and for the finalization of convention representatives with voting rights. For party president, at least four top leaders—namely incumbent party president Sher Bahadur Deuba, senior leader Ram Chandra Poudel, General Secretary Shashank Koirala and Central Work­ing Committee member Shekhar Koirala—have staked their claims.

Four-time Prime Minister Deuba is again going for presidency, as he says he will retire only after again making NC a ‘great party’. The party had badly lost the 2017 fed­eral and provincial elections, and Deuba copped most of the blame for his supposed weak leadership. There was pressure on Deuba to step down; Deuba in turn argued that the party should take collective responsibility for the poor electoral outcome.

Deuba wants to be the party pres­ident till the next national elections in 2023 and to regain the party’s strength to prove that he is a capable leader. At the same time, accord­ing to insiders, Deuba is still in a dilemma about his successor and there is intense competition in the faction for the same: Bimalendra Nidhi, Purna Bahadur Khadka, Gya­nendra Bahadur Karki, Prakash Sha­ran Mahat, Biswoprakash Sharma, and Bal Krishna Khand are all in the fray.

From the main rival faction, Pou­del, a senior leader and ex-vice president, is fighting for party pres­idency this time. He reckons he should be the president at least once after repeatedly being denied the opportunity.

“As a senior leader, Poudel’s can­didacy is natural,” says NC leader Nabindra Raj Joshi. Prakash Man Singh, another senior leader from the Poudel camp, also wants to fight for presidency after having already served as general secretary and vice-president. But if Poudel fights from this camp, Singh is likely to settle for vice-president again.

The next Koirala

From the Koirala camp, there are at least two candidates for party president. Senior leader Shekhar Koirala has already launched a nationwide campaign. In the past two years, he has been continuously canvassing the country. Incumbent General Secretary Shanshank Koi­rala is also vying for party pres­idency. Both Koiralas say there will be a single candidate from the Koirala family. But who? Shekhar has kept himself away from fac­tional politics, while Shashank, who belongs to the Poudel faction, is also trying to project himself as being above factional politics. “Shekhar Koirala has been preparing for long and he seems to be in no mood to backtrack,” Joshi says.

In the previous convention in 2016, senior leader Krishna Prasad Sitaula had also fought for party presidency. This time, he is not fight­ing but is still leading an important faction. There is also a possibility of the Poudel, Koirala and Situala camps coming together to beat Deuba. In that case, it would be hard for Deuba to win. A leader requesting anonymity said a formula could be worked out whereby senior leader Poudel will be party candi­date for prime minister after the next election, in which case either Shanshank or Shekhar would be candidates for party president. Pou­del is not sold on this idea though.

Shashank Koirala, son of veteran NC leader BP, is in popular among party rank and file, mainly elder cadres. He won the popular votes while vying for the post of general secretary at the 2016 convention. If there is no agreement among Pou­del, Koirala, and Sitaula factions, there could be multiple candidates for president, a situation that will be to Deuba’s favor. “If there are multi­ple candidates, Deuba is sure to win again,” says senior NC leader Hom Nath Dahal, who has closely worked with Deuba in the past.

Young hopes

Voices in the party are growing that leadership should be handed over to youth leaders. Yet no youth leader is likely to be the party pres­ident in the upcoming convention, even if one of them could be the general secretary. All factions seem ready to give more space to young leaders, partly because of the feeling that youth leaders can regain the party’s strength and fight the mighty communist forces.

Even senior leaders think youths should get more leadership roles. What is going for the youths is that “there is widespread frustration over the leadership and there is also the anti-incumbency factor,” Dahal says.

From the Deuba camp, spokesper­son Biswoprakash Sharma is likely to fight for general secretary. Shek­har Koirala is trying to woo Gagan Thapa into his camp. According to party leaders, Thapa is almost sure to fight for general secretary. But there are challenges for youth leaders too.

In both Poudel and Deuba camps, there are influential older leaders who want to be general secretary. For instance, Ram Sharan Mahat, Arjun Narsingh KC, and Minendra Rijal are vying for senior positions from the Koirala camp. Similarly, Deuba has the challenge of man­aging leaders such as Gyanendra Bahadur Karki, Bal Krishna Khand, and Prakash Sharan Mahat. There is also the possibility of these leaders being managed at the provincial levels.

The previous general convention was held in 2016. The party statute says the convention should take place every four years, although there is room to push it off by a year. Soon after the party’s defeat in the 2017 elections, there was pressure on Deuba to call the convention in order to elect a new leadership. Deuba dismissed such demands. Historically, there has been a ten­dency in the Nepali Congress to indefinitely occupy the post of party president, barring youth leaders from leadership

Nepali Congress Landmarks

 January 25-26, 1947: Nepali National Congress formed, and Tanka Prasad Acharya, who was serving life imprisonment at the time, becomes president. BP Koirala is chosen acting president.

March 13, 1947: The party launches a massive coun­trywide anti-Rana regime demonstration. A labor movement is started at the Biratnagar Jute Mill under the leadership of Girija Prasad Koirala.

April 9, 1950: Nepali Congress formed through the merger of Nepali National Congress (established on 25 January 1947) and Nepal Democratic Congress (4 August 1948) in Calcutta, India, and an armed struggle is heralded. Matrika Prasad Koirala becomes the party president.

September 26-27, 1950: The Bair­gania Conference adopts the strat­egy of the armed revolt to overthrow the Rana regime.

November 6, 1950: The armed revolution starts with the support of King Tribhuvan who was in exile at the time.

February 18, 1951: The Rana regime falls, the Rana-Nepali Congress coalition government is formed on a parity basis, with Mohan Shumshere again serving as the prime minister.

May 23-26, 1952: The NC’s fifth National Convention at Janakpur elects BP Koirala party president.

January 24-25, 1956: The sixth National Convention in Birgunj adopts the principles of democratic social­ism and decentralization for social transformation. Subarna Shumshere elected as the president.

May 23, 1957: The Special National Convention in Biratnagar, Morang, reelects BP as party president.

February 18, 1959: First nationwide parliamentary election held with Nepali Congress getting two-thirds majority (74 out of 109 seats of parliament).

May 27, 1959: First elected government of Nepal formed under Prime Minister BP Koirala.

May 7-13, 1960: BP Koirala elected party president by the Seventh National Convention in Kathmandu.

December 1961: Another armed revolt kicks off fol­lowing King Mahendra’s 1959 coup.

February 12, 1976: BP nominates KP Bhattarai acting president of Nepali Congress.

January 17, 1992: KP Bhattarai elected party pres­ident by the Eighth National Convention in Kalwal­gudhi, Jhapa. Due to the erstwhile ban on political parties, the eighth convention was held 31 years after the seventh.

May 11, 1996: Girija Prasad Koirala elected party President by the Ninth National Convention in Kathmandu.

January 22, 2001: GP Koirala re-elected party president at the Tenth National Convention in Pokhara, Kaski.

June 18, 2002: Sher Bahadur Deuba breaks the party, forms his own, and calls it the real Nepali Congress. The party is later named Nepali Con­gress (Democratic).

August 30-September2, 2005: The 11th Party Con­vention reelects GP Koirala as the party president. One of the convention’s highlights is a resolution to delete constitutional monarchy from party statute.

25 September 2007: Nepali Congress (Democratic) and Nepali Congress merge.

22 September, 2010: Sushil Koirala becomes party president.

March 7, 2016: Sher Bahadur Deuba becomes party president.

 As the level of engagement between the two countries increases, the currently stable Nepal-China relations are likely to more and more resemble the topsy-turvy Nepal-India ties. Right now, the communist government in Kathmandu seems commit­ted to closer cooperation with Beijing, come what may. Pursued wisely, this policy of engagement with the Middle Kingdom could pay off. China seems committed to closer ties following the long-awaited Nepal visit by Xi Jinping last October. “The visit by a Chinese president after 23 years has helped scale up trust at the top political level, which in turn has had a pos­itive impact on other bilateral issues,” says Rupak Sapkota, deputy executive director of the Institute of Foreign Affairs, a govern­ment think-tank. The spreading coronavirus contagion in China could dent cooperation a bit, particularly in tourism. Nepal will now struggle to meet its goal of bringing 500,000 Chinese tourists in 2020. Otherwise, accord­ing to Sapkota, China has already assured of “special arrangements to offset the effects of coronavirus in projects, tourism, and other areas.”

The Chinese seem keen on improving the condition of the two roads linking the two countries: Araniko Highway and Kathman­du-Rasuwagadhi Highway as they believe that the much-touted rail-link could take some time to materialize, given the difficult terrains it has to pass through. If the two major road links can be turned to all-season routes, as China wants, bilateral trade could see a big boost.

Says Mrigendra Bahadur Karki, executive director of the Center for Nepal and Asian Studies, China has been in ‘action-mode’ in Nepal following Xi’s visit.

Headway in Chinese projects following Xi' s Nepal Visit 

Chinese President XI Jinping’s Nepal visit last October seems to have served as a catalyst to push forward several impending bilateral issues and projects. Apart from the agreements and under­standings signed, the visit helped resolve other pending issues as well.Xi was the first Chinese president to visit Nepal after a 23-year hiatus. During his visit, the two countries signed 20 agreements and under­standings. Before that, Nepali Pres­ident Bidya Devi Bhandari had vis­ited China in April 2019 to take part in the second Belt and Road Forum where she held high-level meetings and signed some agreements.

“The visit by a Chinese president after 23 years has helped scale up trust at the top political level, which in turn has had a positive impact on other bilateral issues,” says Rupak Sapkota, deputy executive director of the Institute of Foreign Affairs, a government think-tank. He adds that an environment of trust is already seen in multiple sectors.

Agreements are being imple­mented at a faster clip, although the coronavirus outbreak has affected them somewhat. “But as far as I know, the Chinese side has already assured Nepal that it would make special arrangements to offset the effects of coronavirus in projects, tourism, and other areas,” Sapkota says. After Xi’s visit, around two dozen Chinese delegations have come on follow-up visits to Nepal.

“At present, China and Nepal are stepping up efforts to implement the important agreements made by the leaders; some projects have already made progress,” said Chi­nese Ambassador to Nepal Hou Yanqi during a recent press meet.

Of late, the cross-border railway has been a hot topic of discussion. But due to the difficult terrains, the railway line will command tre­mendous resources, time, and cut­ting-edge technology. Regardless, the two sides are making progress on the rail line. After pre-feasibility, they have agreed to a three-phase feasibility study. In recent meet­ings, officials have agreed on what each side needs to do. Talks are also underway for the Kathamn­du-Pokhara-Lumbini railway lines.

Roads over rails

As the railway is still under study, it may take some time yet. At the moment, construction of new roads and upgrade of old ones remain a priority. There has already been some progress in upgrading two major roads connecting Nepal and China: Araniko Highway and Kath­mandu-Rasuwagadhi Highway.

The Chinese side is helping the Department of Roads in the third phase of maintenance of Aranika Highway, which was damaged by the 2015 earthquakes. There has also been an agreement to expand and blacktop Syaphrubesi-Rasuwagadhi section of the Kathmandu-Rasu­wagadi Highway. Yet with the Nepali side is yet to demolish roadside structures and remove electricity poles, there have also been delays. Once this phase is done, the road expansion will start in earnest.

If these two major highways come into operation in all seasons, they are expected to greatly boost bilat­eral trade. Due to the difficult ter­rains, the two sides have also agreed to build two tunnels along the high­ways to ease connectivity. An agree­ment to this effect was signed during Xi’s visit. “To facilitate the railway project, the process of building tun­nels has moved forward,” Prime Minister KP Oli said while address­ing the parliament on February 15. A team of Chinese technical officials is already in Nepal to study the tun­nels’ feasibility.

Mrigendra Bahadur Karki, execu­tive director of the Center for Nepal and Asian Studies, says that after Xi’s visit, China has been in action-mode in Nepal, which means all agreements signed during the visit will progress swiftly. “Xi came after the formation of a stable govern­ment in Nepal. It indicates China was in favor of a stable government so that projects could be imple­mented,” Karki says. “Obviously, China has become more proactive in Nepal, and this level of activity is only expected to rise.”

Delivering diversification

There has also been progress in the implementation of the Transit and Transport Agreement signed in 2016 as well. The follow-up proto­col implementation agreement was signed during President Bidya Devi Bhandari’s Beijing visit last year. The protocol came into effect on 1 January 2020. As per the agreement, Nepal is allowed the use of four Chi­nese ports for third-country trade and transit, in what is considered a major progress in changing Nepal’s land-locked status. It is a part of Nepal’s broader foreign policy of diversifying its trade and transit facilities.

There has also been a joint feasi­bility study for bilateral free trade agreement. China has been urging Nepal to sign the agreement at the earliest, but Nepal insists it needs more homework. The two countries are also in the process of choosing a location for China-Nepal Cross-bor­der Economic Cooperation Zone, and officials have already held a few rounds of talks in this regard.

Similarly, the two countries have agreed to hand over each other’s cit­izens who illegally cross the border, as a part of an agreement reached during XI’s visit on the boundary management system. Both the coun­tries are working to implement the agreement, even with concerns that such provisions could be misused to forcefully repatriate Tibetan ref­ugees.

Bilateral trade is also booming even though trade imbalance with China remains a concern. But things may be improving for Nepal. Accord­ing to data provided by the Chinese Embassy in Kathmandu, “In the first 10 months of 2019, the trade volume between China and Nepal reached US $1.2 billion, an increase of 36.1 percent year-on-year, of which Nepal’s export to China increased by 58.1 percent.”

There is also increased collabo­ration in tourism. With Xi’s visit, the number of Chinese tourists is expected to rise, notwithstand­ing the effects of the coronavirus epidemic. Chinese investment is increasing every year; it is already the largest investor in recent years. In fiscal 2018/19, China's investment in Nepal was US $114 million.

Progress amid uncertainty

Despite progress in other areas, the finalization of projects under the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) is still being hindered. The two countries are yet to select BRI projects mainly due to differences over investment modality. Sapkota of the govern­ment think-tank blames the bureau­cracy’s tardiness for the slow prog­ress. “It is the responsibility of the taskforce formed under our foreign secretary to finalize technical details and present them to political leaders who can then settle other issues,” Sapkota says. Nepal had signed the BRI framework agreement in May 2017, and the government had ini­tially identified three dozen projects under it, which has now been cut to nine.

Ajaya Bhadra Khanal, research director at the Center for Social Inclusion and Federalism, says that China has adopted a policy of slowly but steadily expanding bilateral rela­tions after Xi’s visit. “Infrastruc­ture projects are in the preparatory stage, so there is not much visible progress. China has given priority to areas such as cultural relations, stra­tegic community and people-to-peo­ple ties,” adds Khanal, who has been involved in an in-depth research of Chinese engagement in Nepal in the recent past. “Enhancing political relationships is another priority area for China. China is developing ties not only inside the ruling Nepal Communist Party but also with the main opposition Nepali Congress and other parties.”

Even though there may in the future be many upheavals in Nepal-China ties, it is hard to see the increased level of engagement between them decrease

 ‘National security’ is perhaps one of the most nebulous concepts in statecraft. Broadly defined, and borrowing from US Legal, an American legal information provider, “it refers to the protection of a nation from attack or other danger by holding adequate armed forces and guard­ing state secrets.”According to US Legal, the term encompasses “economic security, monetary security, energy secu­rity, environmental security, mil­itary security, political security and security of energy and natural resources.”

Sticking with this broad definition of national security, many countries now consider climate change, which imperils the securities mentioned above, a national security threat and are stepping up efforts to cope with its adverse effects. That sadly is not the case in South Asia, and particularly in Nepal, even though the country is highly vulnerable to climate change-induced disasters.

The issue is frequently discussed among academic circles of South Asia, but not at the government or inter-governmental levels. In sharp contrast, the United States incor­porated climate change threats in its 2015 National Security Strategy. In 2019, the US Congress finalized the Climate Change National Secu­rity Strategy Act, directing “Federal departments and agencies to per­form certain functions to ensure that climate change-related impacts are fully considered in the develop­ment of national security doctrine, policies, and plans, and for other purposes.” Such focused attention on the security implications of cli­mate change has been missing in South Asia.

Our regional bodies like the SAARC and BIMSTEC also overlook this important aspect. For instance, the fourth BIMSTEC summit held in Kathmandu in 2018 expressed serious concern over environmental degradation. Its declaration talks about adverse impact of climate change and global warming on the fragile Himalayan and mountain eco-systems. But it stops short of recognizing climate change as a security threat. Likewise, the SAARC has an action plan on climate change but it too does not mention climate change as security threat for South Asian countries.

Elephant in the room

Climate change can result in large-scale loss of lives and homes. Besides inducing water scarcity and food and electricity crises, it could create fertile ground for terrorist groups and other criminals, posing obvious threat to national security. Floods, wildfires, and other disas­ters can contribute to social insta­bility and conflict in affected areas.

With this in mind, “we have finally incorporated the issue of environ­ment security and its link to national security in the recently formulated National Security Policy,” says Major General (Retd) Purna Bahadur Sil­wal, a member of a taskforce formed to draft the policy.

He bemoans the inadequate understanding of national secu­rity in government agencies, as climate change is still viewed exclusively through the lens of environmental degradation and natural disasters.

The national army should, Silwal argues, study potential threats of cli­mate change, ensure weather-resil­ience, and plan for the deployment of its personnel during climate-in­duced disasters.

The security forces would do well to prepare. In the future, cli­mate-induced natural disasters may put Nepal’s military installments and assets at risk. Climate change is also likely to affect the move­ment of security forces in times of conflict. The lives and livelihoods of rural folks have already been hit hard, which may lead to large-scale domestic or foreign migration, another potential source of conflict in these xenophobic times.

Maheshwor Dhakal, head of the climate change division at the Minis­try of Environment and Population, accepts that climate change is a seri­ous security threat. “Yet this fact is not reflected in government policy documents.”

Home truths

Perhaps Nepal is more vulnerable to a changing climate compared to other South Asian countries. Its glacier lakes may burst and cause floods, destroying infrastructure and people’s lives in lower lands. According to a report prepared by the International Center for Inte­grated Mountain Development (ICI­MOD): “One of the more spectacular effects of recent atmospheric warm­ing in the Himalayas has been the creation of melt-water lakes on the lower sections of many glaciers… many of these lakes have burst their natural retaining dams and moraines.”

The report recommends region­al-level meets of experts and leaders in order to develop a more coordi­nated approach to reduce the risk of glacial lake outburst.

All current institutional frame­works focus on disaster manage­ment, with the primary responsi­bility for it falling on the Ministry of Home Affairs and its disaster man­agement unit.

Krishna Prasad Oli, member of the National Planning Commission, also confesses to not seeing climate change as a security risk. “We have a disaster-risk reduction framework from the center to the grassroots,” he says. “Our official documents are yet to portray climate change as a national security threat”